BRS equipped plane for training
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One half of the Cirrus accidents I can think of, involved fatalities, and the 'chute could not have helped even were it to have been deployed. Don't worry about having to hit the silk....
In the Cirrus accident history, the parachute would have helped avoid 105 fatalities. By my estimate, in about 60% of the fatal accidents, the accident pilot encountered a scenario eerily similar to a successful parachute deployment, but didn't pull -- high altitude loss of control, icing, disorientation, loss of engine power, etc.
So, despite the need to train and demonstrate emergency procedures, the presence of a ballistic parachute needs to be considered. If you fly as if you didn't have one, then you may die as if you didn't have one.
Cheers
Rick
There are some clear factual innacuracies in that page, for example:
This last sentence is complete nonsense. Virtually all part 23 light aeroplanes are tested for spin recovery and required to meet the following rule in FAR-23:
Very very few aeroplanes can be found to be spin resistant and I've never yet met any in the part 23 category, although I'm sure that there are a few.
The use of an alternative safety case did apply to the BRS on the Cirrus, but it has not so far as I know been applied to any other common GA aeroplane. I have seen many papers on spinning programmes for numerous GA aeroplanes at test piloting conferences. A quick check on the SETP papers database for example shows papers on the spinning programmes of the DR2160, Gippsland GA8, a handful of UK microlights, the Derringer, the Lancair Columbia and 400, Piper Arrow, Grumman AA1, Beech C-23, C206, Firefly.
One of those papers clearly says that the SR20 was tested, made an application for spin resistant certification, and failed to get it.
Further, this is from the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association website:
Disregarding the facts of the sad fatal accident itself - if the CAPS was really an inherent part of the design from day 1, why was it not fitted for the entirety of the flight test programme?
So, whether the parachute was an original part of the design or not, there are significant inaccuracies on that webpage. That tends to make me distrust it overall.
G
N.B. Before anybody asks, no I can't give anybody the link to the SETP papers database - it's members only access I'm afraid.
Modern production airplanes are, in general, not tested or certified for spins.
Aerobatic designs such as Extra and Sukhoi products are, of course, certified for spins – but the mainstream general aviation four-seat designs such as Cirrus, Cessna (182, 350/400, etc), Diamond, Mooney, Piper etc. are not certified for spins. Few 4-seat designs have ever been tested or certified for spins.
Aerobatic designs such as Extra and Sukhoi products are, of course, certified for spins – but the mainstream general aviation four-seat designs such as Cirrus, Cessna (182, 350/400, etc), Diamond, Mooney, Piper etc. are not certified for spins. Few 4-seat designs have ever been tested or certified for spins.
23.221 Spinning.
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category
airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second
spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
section.
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category
airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second
spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after
initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate
compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this
section.
The use of an alternative safety case did apply to the BRS on the Cirrus, but it has not so far as I know been applied to any other common GA aeroplane. I have seen many papers on spinning programmes for numerous GA aeroplanes at test piloting conferences. A quick check on the SETP papers database for example shows papers on the spinning programmes of the DR2160, Gippsland GA8, a handful of UK microlights, the Derringer, the Lancair Columbia and 400, Piper Arrow, Grumman AA1, Beech C-23, C206, Firefly.
One of those papers clearly says that the SR20 was tested, made an application for spin resistant certification, and failed to get it.
Further, this is from the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association website:
Experimental test-flight accident, not included in Cirrus production fatal accidents counts, occurred during pre-production flight testing when aileron jammed. SR20 prototype was not equipped with a CAPS parachute. Test pilot Scott Anderson is memorialized by the ANDOE waypoint for the outer marker on the ILS runway 27 approach to Duluth.
So, whether the parachute was an original part of the design or not, there are significant inaccuracies on that webpage. That tends to make me distrust it overall.
G
N.B. Before anybody asks, no I can't give anybody the link to the SETP papers database - it's members only access I'm afraid.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Genghis mentions, I understand it was required to make up for other handling deficiencies. It would be those deficiencies which would worry me! I understand that it is a somewhat limited envelope of flight, for which the 'chute can be deployed, what about all the flying you do which is not in that envelope? If the Cirrus had flying characteristics which did not require a BRS, and it was a factory option, I would buy the plane without, given the choice.
As for buying a Cirrus if it had an option you could decline, there are several Cirrus owners who admit that was their initial desire, but they had no choice. And they still have no choice.
Now, after 28 saves of 53 survivors in a wide variety of scenarios, those owners enthusiastically support the parachute as a factory configuration and are convinced that the parachute adds a level of safety unlike any other.
See this history of Cirrus parachute pulls. People have survived catastrophic engine failure, maintenance induced failures, high-altitude loss of control, low-altitude loss of control, icing, fuel exhaustion, misfueling with Jet-A, and pilot incapacitation. Landings under parachute have occurred in forests, trees, shrubs, golf courses, mountain slopes, inhospitable terrain, rivers, lakes, oceans, power lines, residential street, soft fields, frozen fields, essentially lots of places you would not want to risk an off-airport landing.
There are lots of reasons for personal preferences in choosing an airplane. Please ensure that your choices are based on factual ones.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRS are mandatory in Germany on Ultralights - and if you look at their structural standards, and history of in-flight breakups particularly of high performance ultralights, that's appropriate.
I've had high altitude loss of control several times in ejector seat equipped aeroplanes. We recovered the aircraft as trained, and I still don't have a Martin Baker tie.
Why are Cirrus pilots pulling the handle for high altitude LoC in an aeroplane that allegedly has a satisfactory stall and spin recovery? For that matter, why are the LoC happening often enough to notice? - they aren't generally happening in other aeroplanes. Testing military aircraft, we had an excuse - but in what is basically a luxury touring aeroplane?
G
Why are Cirrus pilots pulling the handle for high altitude LoC in an aeroplane that allegedly has a satisfactory stall and spin recovery? For that matter, why are the LoC happening often enough to notice? - they aren't generally happening in other aeroplanes. Testing military aircraft, we had an excuse - but in what is basically a luxury touring aeroplane?
G
There were certainly instances where people pushed the aircraft further than was wise, but there were also instances where you could put the blame firmly on poor structural standards.
G
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of those papers clearly says that the SR20 was tested, made an application for spin resistant certification, and failed to get it.
So, one can pine away for more pilot skills or acknowledge that additional safety innovations help the average pilot. We need ways to attract more pilots to keep general aviation alive.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are Cirrus pilots pulling the handle for high altitude LoC in an aeroplane that allegedly has a satisfactory stall and spin recovery? For that matter, why are the LoC happening often enough to notice? - they aren't generally happening in other aeroplanes.
One Cirrus pilot was an instructor with aerobatic experience who thinks his autopilot stalled the aircraft in a climb above 15,000 feet. His attempts at recovery were not working as the plane descended into a stratus layer, so he pulled the red handle and deployed the parachute rather than attempt recovery in IMC. He and his wife floated down for many minutes, perhaps 8, and landed in a walnut grove where nothing broke, no wine bottles, no olive oil bottles, no glass holiday ornaments!
Another pilot encountered severe icing and pulled. He and 2 passengers walked out of the plane. Another had his pitot tube ice up and he pushed the nose over to regain airspeed, only to get a terrain alert in IMC so pulled up. He pulled the red handle at the top of a loop at 34 knots while inverted, which he didn't realize until he saw the animated visualisation of his flight!
A philosophical approach to safety that I support is that getting into a bad situation, nor making a mistake while flying, should not be a death sentence.
Cheers
Rick
Oh we need more pilots, and for the record roughly 15 years ago I wrote the UK's first regulations for fitting BRS, which are still in use. So I am not anti-BRS.
I am anti tenuous arguments. If somebody wants to fit a BRS, and it makes them happy, best of luck - and I'm glad to participate in getting it right. I have fitted and mandated BRS - for flight test programmes, and been greatly comforted by that handle when flying the first spin in a new aeroplane type.
I am however of the opinion that efforts on pilot training, in cockpit ergonomics, and efforts in achieving stall and spin resistance in an aeroplane design, will reap far greater rewards than fitting a BRS for most pilots in most aeroplanes.
What brings new pilots in is another question - I suspect it's low cost pleasant aeroplanes under 10 years old (as an alternative to high cost tatty elderly spamcans) in the first instance. If we can bring a bit more of the 1920s-1950s glamour back into aviation, that'll probably help too. A specific safety feature on a quarter million pound aeroplane probably won't.
G
I am anti tenuous arguments. If somebody wants to fit a BRS, and it makes them happy, best of luck - and I'm glad to participate in getting it right. I have fitted and mandated BRS - for flight test programmes, and been greatly comforted by that handle when flying the first spin in a new aeroplane type.
I am however of the opinion that efforts on pilot training, in cockpit ergonomics, and efforts in achieving stall and spin resistance in an aeroplane design, will reap far greater rewards than fitting a BRS for most pilots in most aeroplanes.
What brings new pilots in is another question - I suspect it's low cost pleasant aeroplanes under 10 years old (as an alternative to high cost tatty elderly spamcans) in the first instance. If we can bring a bit more of the 1920s-1950s glamour back into aviation, that'll probably help too. A specific safety feature on a quarter million pound aeroplane probably won't.
G
Some interesting points there SD.
I've twice in my life got into moderate icing in a non-de-iced aeroplane and scared myself somewhat, but both times flew out of it. The laminar flow wing of the Cirrus is probably a lot less tolerant than what I was flying at the time. Is a BRS, or a de-icing system of greater benefit there however?
Pitch trim runaways are a really interesting point. They have caused a number of aircraft to be lost over the years, and to the best of my knowledge have never routinely been a part of any pilot training regime - nor have I ever seen guidance on it in any POH. There's probably a whole new thread in that.
Looking at that JAA report, I accept your point - it was subject to a limited spin test programme, which did not show problems. They simply didn't fly a full spin test programme.
G
I've twice in my life got into moderate icing in a non-de-iced aeroplane and scared myself somewhat, but both times flew out of it. The laminar flow wing of the Cirrus is probably a lot less tolerant than what I was flying at the time. Is a BRS, or a de-icing system of greater benefit there however?
Pitch trim runaways are a really interesting point. They have caused a number of aircraft to be lost over the years, and to the best of my knowledge have never routinely been a part of any pilot training regime - nor have I ever seen guidance on it in any POH. There's probably a whole new thread in that.
Looking at that JAA report, I accept your point - it was subject to a limited spin test programme, which did not show problems. They simply didn't fly a full spin test programme.
G
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In another case a person had water in the static lines. His instruments were acting crazy and he was in low IMC so he pulled. Because the plane was recovered, the water was found. Interestingly it was tap water so it may have come from high pressure washing. Changes were made to the static system as a result.
In a similar case a pilot gets disoriented in IMC. The plane climbs and descends and at times appears under control. ATC effectively declares an emergency for the pilot. The pilot never pulls and eventually crashes and dies.
As for the test pilot incident that was mentioned, it is common in developing a new design to not have all aspects on the design while initial testing is being done. For example, Cirrus was a small company with limited resources. If you watch the video of the chute pull what isn't shown is that the system was modified so the chute could be release after the engine was restarted so the plane could fly away. That avoided the expense of having the plane impact the ground. The aileron issue that killed the test pilot was fixed prior to production. Initially, the plane was intended by Dale to be offered with BRS as an option. It was Alan who pushed to make it standard.
As for the comment on ice, my personal experience is that ice is bad on a Cirrus. I got it once. It wasn't much but the impact on performance was huge.
In a similar case a pilot gets disoriented in IMC. The plane climbs and descends and at times appears under control. ATC effectively declares an emergency for the pilot. The pilot never pulls and eventually crashes and dies.
As for the test pilot incident that was mentioned, it is common in developing a new design to not have all aspects on the design while initial testing is being done. For example, Cirrus was a small company with limited resources. If you watch the video of the chute pull what isn't shown is that the system was modified so the chute could be release after the engine was restarted so the plane could fly away. That avoided the expense of having the plane impact the ground. The aileron issue that killed the test pilot was fixed prior to production. Initially, the plane was intended by Dale to be offered with BRS as an option. It was Alan who pushed to make it standard.
As for the comment on ice, my personal experience is that ice is bad on a Cirrus. I got it once. It wasn't much but the impact on performance was huge.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite an interesting thread! A lot of useful advice, although I'm a bit confused at some of the negativity towards BRS, I can understand why people may not feel its necessary, but quite why you wouldn't want it as a does confuse me still slightly, even if certain events are statistically improbable, it doesn't mean they can't happen and all the training in the world can't change that!
But in short, it sounds like, if I want to go down this route for training, my only option by default is TAA at Denham!
But in short, it sounds like, if I want to go down this route for training, my only option by default is TAA at Denham!
Moderator
I'm not so sure that it's negativity, so much as it's a feeling that it's cautious to the extreme. For me, it's akin to saying that you'd like to learn to fly in a twin, so as to reduce the chance that an engine failure would result in a forced landing. Fine, if you're willing to spend the money, but it still does not protect you from runing out of fuel.
Every time there's a new innovation, there's a group who say that you can't do without it - well we did before...
My relaxed feeling about this comes from flying 6300 hours in 223 airplanes and helicopters in 36 years, and never once thinking that I needed to abandon the flight. Many other posters here would have greater numbers than those. I was made to wear a chute while flying jumpers, only in case a jumper hit and damaged the plane on the way out - I imagine I still would have tried to land it. The worst thing that's ever happened to me in association with flying, was walking away from the plane after tying it down, and slipping on the ice, falling, and hitting my head really hard on the ice. I suppose I should have worn a helmet!
I have never taken military flight training, but I am imagining there is a whole extra session, where the pilot is taught: "okay, there may come a time when flying is no longer an option, in that case, count to one, and pull this handle". It's the "fight or flee" instinct. Civil flight training teaches fight, but not flee. Perhaps a class in "flee" would do me some good, though it was only while flying jumpers have I ever worn a 'chute. (although flying the Tiger Moth last month, I sat on it, but I think it had not been inspected for more than 8 years, so I did not fasten it up).
I would worry that a pilot who was trained that BRS was a normal equipment expectation, would simply feel naked in an aircraft without it. I'm sure Cirrus loves this philosophy, but there is a whole lot of really fun flying you're going to miss out on, if you will fly in a BRS equipped aircraft.
It's not intended as a criticism of your stated preference, but an observation that you might miss out on what we enjoy the most about flying....
Every time there's a new innovation, there's a group who say that you can't do without it - well we did before...
My relaxed feeling about this comes from flying 6300 hours in 223 airplanes and helicopters in 36 years, and never once thinking that I needed to abandon the flight. Many other posters here would have greater numbers than those. I was made to wear a chute while flying jumpers, only in case a jumper hit and damaged the plane on the way out - I imagine I still would have tried to land it. The worst thing that's ever happened to me in association with flying, was walking away from the plane after tying it down, and slipping on the ice, falling, and hitting my head really hard on the ice. I suppose I should have worn a helmet!
I have never taken military flight training, but I am imagining there is a whole extra session, where the pilot is taught: "okay, there may come a time when flying is no longer an option, in that case, count to one, and pull this handle". It's the "fight or flee" instinct. Civil flight training teaches fight, but not flee. Perhaps a class in "flee" would do me some good, though it was only while flying jumpers have I ever worn a 'chute. (although flying the Tiger Moth last month, I sat on it, but I think it had not been inspected for more than 8 years, so I did not fasten it up).
I would worry that a pilot who was trained that BRS was a normal equipment expectation, would simply feel naked in an aircraft without it. I'm sure Cirrus loves this philosophy, but there is a whole lot of really fun flying you're going to miss out on, if you will fly in a BRS equipped aircraft.
It's not intended as a criticism of your stated preference, but an observation that you might miss out on what we enjoy the most about flying....
It's akin to when you drive your car: Have you improved the brakes & tyres to improve your ability to stop, or are they still stock? Do you also wear a helmet with head restraint equipment, flame proof clothing & have fitted a 5 point harness and a carbon fibre driver's capsule? I'll wager the answer(s) is no - because the circumstances in which those would be worth the cost & limitations imposed for the likely hood of use aren't a great enough risk.
BRS *could* be beneficial, but many of the circumstances in which BRS was used could have been dealt with using 'conventional' means ie training, good airmanship, conservative decision making and the like to avoid or solve the problem. In the few cases where BRS was the only realistic solution to the problem then the risk is not great enough to justify the cost. Not just $ to have the equipment on board but also things like useful load that could have been available but used instead by the BRS system.
BRS *could* be beneficial, but many of the circumstances in which BRS was used could have been dealt with using 'conventional' means ie training, good airmanship, conservative decision making and the like to avoid or solve the problem. In the few cases where BRS was the only realistic solution to the problem then the risk is not great enough to justify the cost. Not just $ to have the equipment on board but also things like useful load that could have been available but used instead by the BRS system.
Why does this thread remind me of the first 21 seconds of this clip? (click where it says 'Aces High' to view, not on the 'play' arrow):
Last edited by Mechta; 19th Jan 2012 at 20:27.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRS *could* be beneficial, but many of the circumstances in which BRS was used could have been dealt with using 'conventional' means ie training, good airmanship, conservative decision making and the like to avoid or solve the problem. In the few cases where BRS was the only realistic solution to the problem then the risk is not great enough to justify the cost. Not just $ to have the equipment on board but also things like useful load that could have been available but used instead by the BRS system.
I can only imagine the state of general aviation in the future if we follow this logical thinking and can only rely upon the old ways of doing things.
In my research, I have now talked with the pilots of 8 of the 28 Cirrus parachute pulls about their experiences. Universally, they report dislike of this attitude represented in the negativity towards the system and the pilots who fly it. Universally, they admit that they got into a situation that overwhelmed their training, their airmanship, conservative decision-making.
Now what?
They had an innovative safety feature that changed their plan. And they and their passengers all survived.
Could they have survived without pulling the red handle? Universally, they ask themselves that question, some endlessly, some with finality.
But they all admit that they would rather pull the handle, see their family again, and avoid the negativity.
Cheers
Rick
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without a doubt, the # if Cirrus fatals would have been lower if they all had rigorous training and no BRS, than the present situation with BRS.
But that isn't going to happen, because this is GA / private flying. Anybody with a PPL can buy an SR22 can jump in.
An SR22 is not at all hard to fly (seems similar to my TB20) but obviously you can kill yourself in any plane.
But then you can climb a rock without mandatory training, which is only correct because the State has no business in dictating an individual's attitude to risk.
But that isn't going to happen, because this is GA / private flying. Anybody with a PPL can buy an SR22 can jump in.
An SR22 is not at all hard to fly (seems similar to my TB20) but obviously you can kill yourself in any plane.
But then you can climb a rock without mandatory training, which is only correct because the State has no business in dictating an individual's attitude to risk.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Mechta: 
@ sdbeach: agree 100%
I'm probably giving my age away here, but this thread reminds me of the debate if cars should have seat belts or not. Methinks that one's been settled a while ago....
What also seems to be forgotten here is that not everyone flies above endless green fields (read: UK, most of France) where you can easily put down. In many parts of the world all your superior training, airmanship, whatever is not going to save you, as there is nothing below you to safely land on. And no, you don't have to go to the Rockies or central Oz for that, the Alps, endless olive groves in Spain, boulder-strewn desert in Morocco, dense woods in Germany - they'll all do it for you.
None of the a/c I fly has BRS fitted, but given the option I'd take one any day. Call me what you may - if I can increase the safety of my flying, I damn well will.
@ sdbeach: agree 100%
I'm probably giving my age away here, but this thread reminds me of the debate if cars should have seat belts or not. Methinks that one's been settled a while ago....
What also seems to be forgotten here is that not everyone flies above endless green fields (read: UK, most of France) where you can easily put down. In many parts of the world all your superior training, airmanship, whatever is not going to save you, as there is nothing below you to safely land on. And no, you don't have to go to the Rockies or central Oz for that, the Alps, endless olive groves in Spain, boulder-strewn desert in Morocco, dense woods in Germany - they'll all do it for you.
None of the a/c I fly has BRS fitted, but given the option I'd take one any day. Call me what you may - if I can increase the safety of my flying, I damn well will.
Okay, here's a viewpoint for discussion:
- Safety net provided by a BRS, GOOD
- Safety net provided by greater currency, GOOD
- Safety net provided by limited instrument training, GOOD
- Avoidance of ever using those safety nets by good airmanship , VERY VERY GOOD
- Flying in probable icing conditions without anti-icing equipment, BAD
- Flying towards likely IMC conditions when not instrument qualified, BAD
- Relying on a BRS to get you out of trouble, so persevering into IMC/icing/low-level-over-unlandable-terrain, BAD AND STUPID
- Refusing to fly an aircraft without a BRS, UNNECESSARILY PARANOID
- Preferring to fly an aircraft with a BRS, FAIR ENOUGH
- Spending so much money on the aeroplane and equipment, you can't afford the time to know and stay current on the aeroplane, and flying skills in general SILLY
I'm happy to hang my hat on all of this; I do however think that I have read a lot of Cirrus accident reports that fall fairly into the "BAD AND STUPID" category I defined above.
This isn't a criticism of BRS, or of Cirrus. It is a criticism of some Cirrus pilots, a certain proportion of whom have definitely fallen into the SILLY category.
G
- Safety net provided by a BRS, GOOD
- Safety net provided by greater currency, GOOD
- Safety net provided by limited instrument training, GOOD
- Avoidance of ever using those safety nets by good airmanship , VERY VERY GOOD
- Flying in probable icing conditions without anti-icing equipment, BAD
- Flying towards likely IMC conditions when not instrument qualified, BAD
- Relying on a BRS to get you out of trouble, so persevering into IMC/icing/low-level-over-unlandable-terrain, BAD AND STUPID
- Refusing to fly an aircraft without a BRS, UNNECESSARILY PARANOID
- Preferring to fly an aircraft with a BRS, FAIR ENOUGH
- Spending so much money on the aeroplane and equipment, you can't afford the time to know and stay current on the aeroplane, and flying skills in general SILLY
I'm happy to hang my hat on all of this; I do however think that I have read a lot of Cirrus accident reports that fall fairly into the "BAD AND STUPID" category I defined above.
This isn't a criticism of BRS, or of Cirrus. It is a criticism of some Cirrus pilots, a certain proportion of whom have definitely fallen into the SILLY category.
G
Moderator
Genghis, I agree with you.
I have never flown a Cirrus, nor received the "sales pitch" on the BRS, but i can imagine a well meaning, enthusiastic sales person expounding the virtues of being able to drift down under a canopy if it all goes wrong. I'm sure this could have a large affect upon the decision making of a newer pilot, in a not good way.
I have flown as a safety pilot with pilots new to their amphibian or float plane. "Let's go there for lunch!" they say, with "there" being across a rather large lake. What I have had to explain is that just because we're in a plane equipped with floats does not mean we can land wherever we choose (or chooses us) on the water. Land a C 185 into 3 foot waves, and you'll be lucky to have one float left floating to cling to, while your ELT and safety kit are in the plane at the bottom, and SAR has no idea where you are. We stay nearer to shore, and go around...
The fact that an aircraft has a "safety system" installed should really not in any way affect decision making as to what can be safely done in it. If people like the added sense of safety, okay, but it should not affect the choice to fly. If you would fly the BRS equipped plane, but not the unequipped one, you probably should really take a much closer look at the risks for that flight, and think about what else can be done to mitigate them, and then fly within the optimum conditions for deploying the 'chute for the whole flight!
I have never flown a Cirrus, nor received the "sales pitch" on the BRS, but i can imagine a well meaning, enthusiastic sales person expounding the virtues of being able to drift down under a canopy if it all goes wrong. I'm sure this could have a large affect upon the decision making of a newer pilot, in a not good way.
so persevering into IMC/icing/low-level-over-unlandable-terrain
The fact that an aircraft has a "safety system" installed should really not in any way affect decision making as to what can be safely done in it. If people like the added sense of safety, okay, but it should not affect the choice to fly. If you would fly the BRS equipped plane, but not the unequipped one, you probably should really take a much closer look at the risks for that flight, and think about what else can be done to mitigate them, and then fly within the optimum conditions for deploying the 'chute for the whole flight!